RFCM

Thanks for the responses. We played the RAW but thought it was not the right thing to do. Simple enough to resolve in the SB re-issue. We play a  fair amount of SB games using 930 points.  We have played a number of games using 1240 points on a 930 point table size. We have added a couple of tweaks but it tends to work well.

Regards, Richard

Hello,

If suppressing barrage markers are diagonally adjacent may support be traced through the corner between the markers?

SU   SB   SU      
SB   AU   SB   SB   SB
   DU
         
SU = Supporting Unit
SB = Suppressing Barrage Marker
AU = Attacking unit
DU = Defending Unit

Are the Supporting units able to count support for the Attacking unit through the Suppressing Barrage?

Thanks and regards, Richard

We enjoy playing Square Bashing and we use mainly 930 points per side.  We have been experimenting with larger armies but using 12 square frontage and experimenting with reserves entering the battlefield. We are thinking of playing larger games on a bigger board and this needs much more thought. We usually have two players a side at the moment.

Square Bashing is a great game. Consideration needs to be given to the 900 point games, which we play regularly, I cannot remember when we last played a 620 point game (could be my age). I am thinking mainly of confirmation or not of what else changes, if anything. Previously I brought up assets which were not to be increased or hasty defences from two to three, again which were not to be increased, which is fine.

The replacement of two reservist units when you have 9 or more in the starting army. Should this increase to 13 or more reservists in the 900 point game?

I assume the Trench and Canal games are, in the main written for 620 point games. In the 900 point Trench game, should the defender lose 6 bases of infantry instead of 4? Should the defender damage 3 each of artillery and MGs instead of 2 each? Both these would be harsh on the defender but it did come up in conversation.

Regards, Richard

Thanks Simon, I understand now. The primary assault can be chosen after all movement.
Cheers, Richard

Hi SimonC, you misunderstood my badly phrased question.

My question is - when declaring a target box for an assault, should the main assault box dice for activation first (If coming out of terrain) or can the 'support assault(s) from adjacent boxes (coming out of terrain) be diced for activation first?  It may not matter. I know the combat dice are totalled for the whole attack.

Regards, Richard

Hello,

1. When assaulting a square should the main attack be declared and diced for first before any secondary or tertiary 'support attacks' are declared and diced for?

2. When more than one square are shooting at another square do you calculate by box and add them together or just add the points up and take away or add the modifiers e.g  Reserve infantry in different boxes either do not add a dice or they could add one dice if all factors are calculated together.

Thanks Richard

Thanks for the support Martin.
I am not easily deterred and these questions about the 900 point game are just about checking that the points made have been considered and not used for good reason.
I have played quite a few games recently and the two I am most proud of are the 1916-18 Austro-Hungarians attacking in a Trench Game against the Italians, taking 5 objectives including the Bunker and winning well. The other was a reversal with the Austro-Hungarians defending in the trenches and holding all but one of the objectives at the end of the game. Both these games were 8 turns long which is unusual for us.

Regards, Richard

My rules are with someone else, so if memory serves me right, Yes we are playing the game from the rule book.
Regards, Richard

Hi Stewart,

The people I play against are just into larger games.  They increased the board size to 12 x 6 squares for 900 point games before I started playing. I assumed this is correct because you add two more objectives and they cannot be in adjacent rows. Happy to be corrected.

Regards, Richard

Hi Martin,
Thanks again for the quick reply.
We have started using a third set of hasty defences for the 900 point game which seems fair and does not appear to affect either side unduly so far in the 3 or 4 games we have played with the extra defences.
We have not adjusted the assets in any way as we thought to ask the questions first to see if others had, and would share their experiences.
If we do mess with the assets and or number of squares affected by barrage, I will provide some feedback on outcomes.
Thanks again,
Regards, Richard

Thanks for the quick reply Martin and I believe you are correct regarding the asset values.
We play 900 point games all the time and wanted to confirm what we are doing is a sensible extension to the 620 point games.
Would you add another hasty defence for the defender in a 900 point game?
Just going back to my first post about barrage sizes. In a 620 point game Suppression, Gas and Rolling (assuming they arrive) all cover more than half the frontage - 5 out of 8 squares, whereas in the 900 point game they cover 5 out of a 12 square frontage.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Regards, Richard

Hello,

In 900 point games, army minimums, objectives, table size etc. are increased by 50%.  Also the army status value can be recalculated. Was there any consideration given to increasing some of the assets by 50% and or the barrage sizes?

Thanks and regards,
Richard